Biden: “Executive action can be taken” on gun control

posted at 3:21 pm on January 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

We already knew this was coming, but that doesn’t make it any more welcome. Speaking at his meeting with “gun safety” advocates (talk about re-branding!) on Wednesday, Vice President Biden reiterated that the president can and will take executive action on what he deems to be good gun-control ideas after his task force’s oh-so-measured and inclusive talks with gun interests across the political spectrum.

“The president is going go act,” said Biden, who is conducting meetings all week on gun control. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”

“I want to make clear that we’re not going to get caught up in the notion that, unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing,” Biden said. “It’s critically important we act.”

He added that there is “pretty wide consensus on three or four or five things in the gun safety area that could and should be done.”

CBS has more specifics on what some of these enhanced gun-control recommendations, meant to be submitted to the president before the end of the month, might look like:

The president indicated that he wants the task force to submit recommendations by the end of January. He also wants Congress to reestablish the ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004; limit the size of magazines; and expand background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed sellers to sidestep checks. The task force is also expected to look at broader efforts that might include a national database of gun owners and proposals that can be implemented without congressional approval.

After the task force meeting, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, said there seems to be consensus among a diverse group of organizations in support of background checks for gun purchasers. He noted that only 40 percent of gun owners have received background checks.

Gross attempted to ease fears of gun advocates that the current debate is not about the Second Amendment or taking away guns from legal gun owners. He said the meetings and the task force is about “staking out that middle ground that so clearly exists.”

Funny how all of these “middle ground that so clearly exists”-ideas seem to confirm gun control, ahem, I’m sorry, “gun safety” advocates’ preexisting notions of fewer guns and more bureaucracy as the only solutions for stopping violence. The White House might be putting on a good show by meeting with the NRA and others tomorrow, but I severely doubt that one of the few ideas that has actually been proven to help stop violence is going to get any real consideration:

MR. CARNEY: Well, I think as the President said, he doesn’t want to prejudge any recommendations that any stakeholder might present. He did in his “Meet the Press” interview respond to a question about the specific recommendation that the NRA had made by saying that he was skeptical that putting more guns in schools would solve this problem. But again, we look forward to hearing from a variety of organizations and civic groups and others who have insights into this problem.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I’d love to see the libtard reaction to a republican administration threatening to infringe upon constitutuonal rights through executive order. Just look at the furor that emerges whenever your side conjures up boogeymen who threaten the imagined “right to privacy”.

Of course, this is the sort of un-Constitutional BS that this criminal administration thinks it can do since the GOP and Romney didn’t even bother to say anything about the totally illegal Executive order to legalize illegals on the whim of the Precedent and his toadies at ICE. That was an affront to America and to the Rule of Law, not to mention a clearly impeachable act (and worse) where Barky acted like Sukarno, dictating his preferences to the nation and the Congress, but the cowards int eh GOP and the idiot Romney couldn’t be bothered to say anything about it, let alone impeach the miserable, criminal POS for it. So … this is what we get. And it only gets worse. Much, much worse.

A vast majority would obey. Then the police would be sent door to door to round up the weapons of anyone who did turn it in (and round up anyone who refused to their faces to turn it in).

Doomberg on January 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Let us assume this crazy scenario (that is not going to happen) where the government decides to confiscate the guns… Let also assume that the vast majority would obey and surrender the guns, let us say that 90% of the 80 million gun owners obey so we are left with 8 million gun owners who would not obey and decide to resist the gun confiscation by force… Do you know the impossibility of confiscating by force the guns from 8 million gun owners?… Which military are you going to send to disarm 8 million people who are ready to fight? First of all 70% of the military vote Republican and they will not obey… Second in order to subdue 1 gun owner you need at least to send 5 armed people to do so the required force to disarm by force 8 million people is 40 million armed and well trained security force… At one point the conspiracy theorists have to face the f***ng reality that their f***ed theory is impossible to happen due to f***ing logisitics to say the least…

Lovefatherland has a sign ready just in case, it says “GUN FREE ZONE!” and includes a photo of a handgun with an X over it. He will flash that at anyone who breaks into his house and immediately drive them away.

How do we know that both political parties are co-conspirators with Obama in this unconstitutional attempt to disarm American Citizens. Very simply, if they weren’t, John Bonehead Boehner and Mitch Benedict Arnold McConnell would be filing articles of impeachment against Barack Obama right this very second. But they are not, and they are not because they are in on it with Obama.

SWalker on January 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

You cannot file article of impeachements on something that does not exist and has not happened…

Let us assume this crazy scenario (that is not going to happen) where the government decides to confiscate the guns… Let also assume that the vast majority would obey and surrender the guns, let us say that 90% of the 80 million gun owners obey so we are left with 8 million gun owners who would not obey and decide to resist the gun confiscation by force… Do you know the impossibility of confiscating by force the guns from 8 million gun owners?… Which military are you going to send to disarm 8 million people who are ready to fight? First of all 70% of the military vote Republican and they will not obey… Second in order to subdue 1 gun owner you need at least to send 5 armed people to do so the required force to disarm by force 8 million people is 40 million armed and well trained security force… At one point the conspiracy theorists have to face the f***ng reality that their f***ed theory is impossible to happen due to f***ing logisitics to say the least…

mnjg on January 9, 2013 at 3:58 PM

One thing you will never see is any leftist trying to disarm the people that need to be disarmed: such as the gangs in Chicago. They don’t have the guts, the streets would run red with the blood of their police and they know it.

They think it will be safer to go after law abiding people. They should think again…

Just as there isn’t enough income out there to tax to find a $4 trillion a year government there aren’t enough jackboots to disarm 80 million Americans.

Today, the states of Idaho, Montana, and Texas all followed the state of New York’s lead and released maps showing the residential locations of all gun owners in the states.

Were I a non-gun owner in any of those states, I might take offense at letting criminals know which homes to avoid breaking into lest one take the chance of being shot. Acts like this may actually lead to many on the fence to decide its time to arm up.

A sad announcementhttp://proteinwisdom.com/?p=46120
I know I probably shouldn’t have done it — especially because yesterday was a snowy day with the temperature here in Colorado dipping well below freezing — but on a whim I took all my guns and ammunition out in a small skiff on one of the nearby lakes and, sad to say, the boat capsized when I stupidly tried to prove to myself that I could do it Gangnam style, even in an inherently unbalanced situation, while also tending to a fishing pole.

All my firearms and my ammo stockpile is now, as a consequence, sleeping with the fishes.

Just so you know. All you who are reading here. And no, I have no plans to replace them at this point. Because children.

Somewhere, A Motherland Has Lost Its Idiot on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

“Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.”

– Senator Walter Mondale, one-time Democratic nominee for President and the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 20 April 1994

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible.”

“I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can’t agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don’t wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them.”

– Hugh Downs, veteran ABC newsman

“Prohibiting law-abiding people from owning guns because they might be stolen by criminals is like prohibiting women from going out at night because they might be raped.”

– Unknown

“If the Government doesn’t trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?”

– Unknown

“Firearms have been around for over 400 years, yet it is only in the last 20 years that people have begun shouting “gun control”. Why then, only recently, has this become such an issue? Moreover, why are there more mass-murderers than at any other time in our known history? It is not because weapons are more powerful — 200-year-old muzzleloaders have a much greater force-per-round than today’s ‘assault rifles.’ It is not because weapons are semi- or fully-automatic — rapid-fire weapons have been available for most of the last century. It is not due to a lack of laws — we have more ‘gun control’ laws than ever. It IS, however, because we have chosen to focus on “gun control” instead of crime control or “thug control.” It IS because only recently has the public become complacent enough to accept, by inaction, the violence present in our society.”

– Kevin Langston, 29 October 1991

”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.”

– Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”

– Dr Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both parents in the 1991 Luby’s cafeteria massacre

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Just a thought, and I may be giving him too much credit, but is it possible that Biden was floating a trial balloon to get a feel for things.
It is strange that he made this comment upfront of the thinking process.

Just as there isn’t enough income out there to tax to find a $4 trillion a year government there aren’t enough jackboots to disarm 80 million Americans.

Molon Labe. And ya gotta believe this admin, and the Left in general, is prepared for blood to be spilled if it comes right down to it. Of course they’d prefer peaceful means to accomplish installing their Utopian peoples paradise, but whatever it takes they will do.

I was listening to wRKO Boston, a called said to Howie, “We don’t need more gun control, we need more NutJob control.” Really true, isn’t it?

Fleuries on January 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Especially for extreme nutjobs like those who would furnish murderous drug gangs with thousand of assault weapons to murder people, including children, with, and then claim not to have any memory of it.

Funny how all of these “middle ground that so clearly exists”-ideas seem to confirm gun control, ahem, I’m sorry, “gun safety” advocates’ preexisting notions of fewer guns and more bureaucracy as the only solutions for stopping violence.

There is no middle ground. There is law abiding gun owners rights protected by the Constitution and then there is the President and his accomplices that are breaking their oaths of office by attempting to circumvent and negate it. When will the sackless Repubes in the House start impeachment hearings?

Please understand, Mr. “President”, I WILL NOT COMPLY.

To any little, weaselly, nanny-state wanting, “if it only saves one life it’s worth it”, anti-gun, anti-freedom, government knows how to live your life better than you do, fascist-liberal bureaucrat…come and try to take my firearms.

By the way, when all you fascists start demanding that abortion be banned, because you know “if it only saves one life, it’s worth it”, you can start using that line for worthless gun laws.

Please, for the love of God, DO NOT try and rationalize what is going on with proposed bans, EOs, etc. You are simply wasting your precious time. Accept the fact that they will cram this down the Republic’s throat at nearly any cost. Consider it a done deal and don’t delude yourself with how it won’t happen because “fill in the blank”.

Obamacare was crammed down our throats. You are now required by penalty of law to purchase a privately offered product. You thought it would be overturned. “Surely, any rational judge would toss this, and it would never hold up in the SC”, you thought.

Don’t be so naive – these people bank on that. Do not entertain rational outcomes – that’s their way of compounding interest.

You need to ask yourself what you’re prepared to do in order to turn the country you knew, over to your kids. You need to look deep into your heart, and see that pontificating the end result will bring about the one you thought wasn’t possible.

Stop entertaining the thought of a rational outcome – that has long since passed. Start thinking about the things you don’t want to do – those are the things that need to be done first.

One thing you will never see is any leftist trying to disarm the people that need to be disarmed: such as the gangs in Chicago. They don’t have the guts, the streets would run red with the blood of their police and they know it.

They think it will be safer to go after law abiding people. They should think again…

Just as there isn’t enough income out there to tax to find a $4 trillion a year government there aren’t enough jackboots to disarm 80 million Americans.

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Correct… The reason is that White liberal elite which a very tiny minority in the democrat party does not give a damn about blacks except for their vote on elections day… They need to keep blacks poor, uneducated, having 72% of their children out of wedlock, their inner cities infested with crimes and drugs, so a huge majority blacks will be totaly dependents on the tiny white liberal elite for living by getting the welfare checks paid by the producers and in return the blacks vote for this tiny liberal elite…

- Dr Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both parents in the 1991 Luby’s cafeteria massacre
Resist We Much on January 9, 2013 at 4:06 PM

She’s pretty awesome. And for the record, the district she represented was traditionally Democrat.

As a survivor of the Luby’s massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that if there had been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant. She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The concealed-weapons bill was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush.

It already happened in New Orleans. The police and national guard carried out the confiscations, and the gun-owners were on their own and forced to comply.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Surprise operations like that usually do succeed… the FIRST time.

To disarm the whole population they will need an impossible number of jackbooted government thugs and they will need to be prepared to take heavier casualties than in any war.

If the government tries confiscation it so violates the Constitution as to become illegitimate. It wouldn’t be the People rebelling against the government, it would be the government rebelling against the People!

lol..when it hits the fan…you’ll be the first one banging on some conservatives “bunker” (i.e. armed home) begging to come in and be protected.

Nah, Somewhere, A Motherland Has Lost Its Idiot will be going full Soros and working for the government going door-to-door trying to confiscate guns. Needless to say, his career in government will be short.

SAMHLII’s ancestors were some of those that cheered on Wilson and FDR when they disarmed, stole the property of, and then deprived Americans of their liberty without due process. In fact, they cleared the tracks for the railroad cars carrying Nisei during WWII.

First, we have to cut out all the whining – more gun laws will get people killed, it’s against the Constitution, etc. etc.

THEY DON’T CARE.

There is no argument we can make, that will lessen one bit their mania to disarm us. None.

What we do need to do, is identify what the 0bama regime can do with EO, and how to counter them.

One thing that was mentioned, is they can ban the importation of guns, ammo, and accessories from overseas. Can they, and what can we do about that?

Another thing they can try, is to have the EPA declare lead based ammo an environmental hazard, and ban it and make all gun ranges clean up every molecule of lead which would close down 99% of them. How can we counter that?

We need to be proactive, not whiners. They are out for blood, we need to sack up and fight them with the seriousness they’re fighting us with.

Please, for the love of God, DO NOT try and rationalize what is going on with proposed bans, EOs, etc. You are simply wasting your precious time. Accept the fact that they will cram this down the Republic’s throat at nearly any cost. Consider it a done deal and don’t delude yourself with how it won’t happen because “fill in the blank”.

Obamacare was crammed down our throats. You are now required by penalty of law to purchase a privately offered product. You thought it would be overturned. “Surely, any rational judge would toss this, and it would never hold up in the SC”, you thought.

Don’t be so naive – these people bank on that. Do not entertain rational outcomes – that’s their way of compounding interest.

You need to ask yourself what you’re prepared to do in order to turn the country you knew, over to your kids. You need to look deep into your heart, and see that pontificating the end result will bring about the one you thought wasn’t possible.

Stop entertaining the thought of a rational outcome – that has long since passed. Start thinking about the things you don’t want to do – those are the things that need to be done first.

No… an idiot talking about “possible executive order” that no one knows a thing about it is not a ground for impeachment…

mnjg on January 9, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Enacting an EO like that is not only impeachable, it IS Treason, and beyond that it renders this President and any portion of the government that attempts to carry it out co-conspirators and Illegitimate.

It would be nothing short of Obama declaring himself in open Rebellion against the United States.

Very few people are going to commit suicide to keep their guns. Alone they will be disarmed the same way it has happened in the past elsewhere.

To disarm the whole population they will need an impossible number of jackbooted government thugs and they will need to be prepared to take heavier casualties than in any war.

I wouldn’t discount Obama’s National Security Force so quickly. This would also give them their ‘crisis’ and an opportunity to advance their hold in areas they haven’t yet been able to.

If the government tries confiscation it so violates the Constitution as to become illegitimate. It wouldn’t be the People rebelling against the government, it would be the government rebelling against the People!

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 4:11 PM

I agree and it hasn’t happened yet, but these guys seem to be on the road to doing exactly that.

Is there any Constitutional Right you’re agreeable to? Because any assault on one Bill of Rights is an affront to the whole. Are you comfortable with this precedent (regardless if you like guns or Amendment II)?

Enacting an EO like that is not only impeachable, it IS Treason, and beyond that it renders this President and any portion of the government that attempts to carry it out co-conspirators and Illegitimate.

It would be nothing short of Obama declaring himself in open Rebellion against the United States.

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Remember, one need not successfully commit a crime to be guilty of committing a crime, all that is legally required is Mens rae. Hence the criminal charges, conspiracy to commit or attempted murder. Conspiracy to commit Treason carries the exact same legal ramifications as actually committing Treason.

So long as it’s someone else’s blood that gets spilled. They will try to divide and conquer; picking people up as they leave for work, etc. in order to minimize the bloodshed. When they try the heavy handed approach (Janet Reno), things don’t work out so well for them.

Remember, one need not successfully commit a crime to be guilty of committing a crime, all that is legally required is Mens rae. Hence the criminal charges, conspiracy to commit or attempted murder. Conspiracy to commit Treason carries the exact same legal ramifications as actually committing Treason.

SWalker on January 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM

This is true.

I can make an argument though that our government has already passed the bounds of legitimacy in passing Obamacare and that Chief “Justice” Roberts rendered the Supreme Court illegitimate and null and void with his tortured decision to uphold it.

The Republic ceased to exist pretty much at that moment. A State that can compel us to engage in commerce against our will for the privilege of existing can compel us to do anything at all.

Frankly, I read this when I woke up and my first reaction was, “ah, so he’s going to step in that bear trap is he?”

Despite some pessimism in the conservative atmosphere, I still think even attempting this will come back and bite Obama in the butt, hard. The polling I’ve seen so far suggests that even immediately after the recent shooting, support for the sort of Gun control most advocates are pushing for only barely cracked the forty percent mark.

So it’s not exactly a popular idea to begin with, and then they’re going to try forcing it through in a manner that most individuals will clearly perceive as constitutionally dubious. That’s likely to cost some support as well, and will likely bring up memories of how Obama and the democrats forced through Obama care using dubious tactics as well.

Whats more, there’s no way he could try to enact Gun Control through executive order without triggering a supreme court battle, and with the court make up being the way it is now I’m actually one hundred percent confident we’d win that one. The executive office after all, traditionally has no power to enact legislation unilaterally. Most previous executive orders have related entirely to the function of either the military or government organizations, not to the actions of private individuals.

Mind you, I’d have to see exactly what they would try to push through to tell you exactly HOW blatantly unconstitutional it is. And of course, courts sometimes rule creatively in order not to rule something unconstitutional out of a weird desire to appear apolitical. However, a lot of judges are likely to resent a move like this, as it could be perceived as both an attempt to get around the legislature and potentially judicial review. So, even normally left leaning judges may be less inclined to be generous in this case.

I can make an argument though that our government has already passed the bounds of legitimacy in passing Obamacare and that Chief “Justice” Roberts rendered the Supreme Court illegitimate and null and void with his tortured decision to uphold it.

The Republic ceased to exist pretty much at that moment. A State that can compel us to engage in commerce against our will for the privilege of existing can compel us to do anything at all.

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 4:25 PM

so what are you going to do? form a militia and march over washington while the puzzled suburbanites look at you before heading to work or to the mall…

The optimist says the glass is half full.
The pessimist says the glass is half empty.
The engineer says the glass is the wrong size.
The realist says “Hey, who cares about that crap… the stuff in the glass is POISON, you fools! Don’t taste it!

Incredible . . . this joker really believes he’s king. If this continues, this once great nation will collapse under its own weight.

rplat on January 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Our Republic will survive and even thrive in some portion of what was the United States. Think large concentration of red states… The blue states dominated by the huge welfare and crime distribution centers (known as cities) will be hell on Earth.

I am increasingly of the belief that the United States as it has existed is rapidly nearing it’s end. Collapse was inevitable before Obama (because spending and debt was already beyond fixing) but he’s hastened the process by AT LEAST a full generation in his first 4 years. It wouldn’t surprise me if this all hits well before the end of his theoretical “last” term.

i dont have guns, but generally i am in favor of responsible ownership. however, these statment by biden plays right into every “the goverment is after my guns” nut!
this is going to be fun to watch!
nathor on January 9, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I do not put it past this president or vice president to try to ban semi-automatic weapons via executive order..of course it won’t work
that isn’t a law…if he does this though impeachment calls should start immediately

Our Republic will survive and even thrive in some portion of what was the United States. Think large concentration of red states… The blue states dominated by the huge welfare and crime distribution centers (known as cities) will be hell on Earth.

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Look at the Soviet Union and how they broke apart. It can happen here. I too agree that the U.S. as we knew it is gone. S-e-c-e-s-s-i-o-n is looking better and better every day.

Molon Labe. And ya gotta believe this admin, and the Left in general, is prepared for blood to be spilled if it comes right down to it. Of course they’d prefer peaceful means to accomplish installing their Utopian peoples paradise, but whatever it takes they will do.

hawkeye54 on January 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Oh now you are just making stuff up about the left.

I have never seen any evidence they would prefer peaceful means to accomplishing their Utopian People’s Paradise.

The White House extended an invitation to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to participate in a meeting Thursday focused on curbing gun violence, but the retailer declined due to a scheduling conflict, a company spokesman said.

Looks like they may not want to be collaborators in destroying Liberty after all.

How about removing all the guns from the guards at schools President’s, Mayor’s, Vice-President’s, Governor’s and Hollywood celebrity’s children attend?

Fred 2 on January 9, 2013 at 4:32 PM

You naive little flyover rube.

There will be dispensations for certain classes of people, for the sake of this example let’s call them “Party Members” and of course for the governing class, let’s refer to them as the “Politburo”. These special people will not be beholden to the laws they create, oh no, because they are…well…special.

Ok, so Obambi says that he doubts putting trained armed security guards inside schools will deter future violence. Hrmmm, I guess that is why when during a war, when a force is being attacked the first option is always to disarm our own forces thereby reducing the amount of violence! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Once Obambi has gutted the military,disarmed the citizens and driven our economy into the ground to the point where we default on our so called debts to China, China will declare war on the US…and Obama will be in the clear to surrender immediately on the promise that he be allowed to remain acting “governor” of the new Chinese controlled territory! Neat huh?

But, it won’t. Not with the current leadership. Heck, Congress began giving up its powers years ago, and haven’t demanded any of them back, so far. No, it will require more … physical and populist implementation of the DoI statement:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty……